Manas in waking, dream and deep sleep and the realization of No-Mind

In kārikā 29, Gauḍapāda says that: ‘As in dream, the mind acts through māyā presenting the appearance of duality, so also in the waking state, the mind acts, through māyā, presenting the appearance of duality’.

Śaṅkara in his commentary on this kārikā raises the following question: How can we say that the Absolute Reality passes into birth only through māyā or illusion? In response to this question he replies that the snake imagined in the rope is cognised in its reality only when it is cognised as a rope. Similarly, mind is cognised in its reality when it is realised as the Self, the absolute Consciousness. The mind when seen from the standpoint of knowledge of the ultimate reality, the substratum (i.e. the self / ātman) is real. The mind appears dual in dream, in the form of cogniser and cognised, seer and seen, cause and effect, subject and object etc., through the power of illusion. This is like the snake which appears to be separate from the rope through ignorance. The snake does not have an independent existence apart from the rope.

In the dream state the mind vibrates as appearance only. Because of ignorance the mind thinks and acts as if there is duality. So also, in the waking state, the mind, due to ignorance, appears to thinks and acts as if there is duality. According to both Gauḍapāda and Śaṅkara the duality which is thus made to appear through ignorance/ māyā is unreal.

In kārikā 30 Gauḍapāda explains the doctrine of non-origination (ajātivāda) by the analysis of wakeful and dream states. He says that, ‘there is no doubt that it is the non-dual mind that appears as dual in dream. Similarly, there is no doubt that in the waking state also the non-dual mind appears as dual.

Śaṅkara in his commentary explains that the imagined snake when seen as a rope, (the substratum), is identified with the rope. The moment we understand the real nature of the snake, it resolves with the rope and our knowledge becomes complete. Similarly, the mind though in reality one with ātman, appears in dream as if it were itself dual. In dream, objects like elephant etc., are cognised and the sense organs like the eye etc, is the cogniser. Both of them do not exist independently of consciousness (mind). It is exactly the same in the waking state, as the perceiving consciousness (mind) is the same in both states.

Having thus equated duality with the functioning of the mind, Gauḍapāda proceeds to speak about non-duality. In kārikā 31 he says: ‘All these dual objects, comprising everything that is movable and immovable, perceived by the mind (are mind alone). For, duality is never experienced when the mind ceases to act’. Gauḍapāda includes in the world of delusion both the movable and immovable. The movable includes and incorporates in it the entire world of conscious living being, and immovable embraces the entire world of inert matter.

It may be asked what is the ground for saying that duality is perceived by the mind (alone) even like the imagination of a snake in place of the rope. According to Śaṅkara the statement ‘that duality is the creation of the mind alone’ is made on the basis of an inference following the method of agreement (anvaya) and difference (vyatireka). ‘This duality, as a whole, that is perceived by the mind is nothing but the mind, which is itself imagined on the Self’. This is the proposition to be established as true. The reason for such inference is wherever there is mind, (when the mind is active); there is duality (as in wakeful and dream states). And when there is non-mind (i.e. when the mind ceases to act) duality is not experienced (as in samādhi, swoon, deep-sleep).

According to Śaṅkara the mind becomes non-mind (amanibhāva) when the mind is withdrawn unto itself by acquiring the knowledge through discrimination (viveka) between the eternal and non-eternal, repeated practice (abhyāsa) and renunciation (vairagya). This withdrawal (nirodha) of mind is to be distinguished from the mechanical citta-vṛtti-nirodha as prescribed by Pātañjali. The mind, when ceases to be the mind gets absorbed in the ātman just as a snake superimposed on a rope gets absorbed in the rope.

Gauḍapāda now explains in kārikā 32 how does the mind cease to be the mind. In this kārikā he gives a further explanation of the relationship of mind and non-mind, or we can say relative mind and ultimate mind, alluded to in the previous (3:31) kārikā. He says that, ‘when the mind does not imagine on account of the knowledge of the Truth which is ātman, then it ceases to be mind and becomes free from all idea of cognition, for want of objects to be cognised’^[1].

Śaṅkara in his commentary on this kārikā also explains how the mind becomes nonmind. He says that, ātma-satya in the text means that ātman alone is the Reality. In this regard he gives an illustration from the Chāndogya Upaniṣad: ‘Modification being only a name arising from speech while the truth is that it is just clay’ (Chāndogya Upaniṣad. VI.1.4)^[2]. According to this Śruti text the only reality in the image of earth and its modifications in the form of pots, jars, etc. is the clay/earth. The names and forms, on account of their changeability and sublatability, are unreal. Similarly ātman alone is real. The truth of ātman means the truth that ātman alone is real. This knowledge is attained through the instruction given by the scripture and the preceptor. Having attained this knowledge, the mind ceases to imagine as there is nothing to be imagined. It is like fire without fuel. If there is no combustible thing, the fire does not burn. The mind stops functioning because there is nothing to activate it. In fact, the mind is no longer the mind. The mind resolves into the Self/ ātman which is free from subject-object duality (grāhya-grāhaka bhāva).

Gauḍapāda emphasizes on the notion of amanibhāva as invariably connected to liberation in the sense that with the attainment of the state of amanibhāva the dual relation of cogniser and the cognised disappears. He uses the methodology of anvaya and vyatireka to demonstrate that with the rising of the mind, the world rises and with the withdrawal of the mind the world also disappears. In other words with the presence of the mind the world is seen to be present and in the absence of the mind the world disappears. Śaṅkara evidences thus just as the snake perception is removed by the correct knowledge of the rope, so too, with a practice of discrimination and dispassion the mind attains the state of non-mind. When the rope is recognized, the snake perception is falsified. To the attainment of the amanibhāva, the existence of the world is falsified. This can be clearly seen in our study of deep-sleep. When the mind subsides, the world too subsides. And with the waking with the active mind, the world is seen to exist. In other words the co-existence is established between the mind and the world such that in the presence of the mind the world is seen to exist and the absence of the mind the world is not cognised. After discussing the centrality of amanibhāva, Gauḍapāda elaborates on how one attains this amanibhāva. According to him when the truth is known as one’s own Self which is ever non-dual, the desiring, willing, acquiring etc. cease. There being none other than the Self there is nothing to be desired or willed. This state of ‘knowing’ is free from the cognisercognized relationship. For the knower of the Self there is none other than the Self.

Hence nothing else is desired for. Śaṅkara proceeds to explain when the fuel is burnt completely the fire also extinguishes. Similarly, when the world as other than the Self ceases to exist, all desires along with the mind cease to exist.

Continuing with this description of amanibhāva Gauḍapāda identifies as to who is eligible for this Self-knowledge which liberate one from the cycles of birth and death. In kārikā 33 he says: ‘The knowledge (Jñānam) which is unborn and free from all imaginations is ever inseparable from the knowable. The immutable and birthless Brahman is the sole object of knowledge. The birthless is known by the birthless’.

It may be asked, if duality is unreal and therefore the mind is non-mind, by what means the truth of one’s own Self is realized? According to Śaṅkara the knowers of Brahman say that knowledge which is free from of all imaginations, all differentiations such as knower, known etc., is unborn and of the nature of pure Consciousness. This knowledge without thought, imagination and birth is nondifferent (jneyābhinnam) from Brahman. The knowledge and the objects of knowledge are non-different. The identification of this knowledge with Brahman is supported by the following scriptural texts as: ‘There is no cessation of the knowing of a knower (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. VI.3.30)^[3] like the heat of fire’; ‘Brahman is knowledge, Brahman is bliss’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. III.9.28)^[4]; ‘Brahman is Truth, Knowledge, Infinite (TaiU II.1.1)^[5].

Brahman is never born. It is eternal and always the same. It is without attributes and therefore beyond thought, speech and beyond even imagination. It is not different from that Brahman which is knowledge (jñānam) and also the object of knowledge. This unborn and eternal Brahman reveals itself through eternal knowledge.

In this kārikā Gauḍapāda says that the ātman is said to be knowledge itself. According to both Gauḍapāda and Śaṅkara, this knowledge that has Brahman, for its object is non-different from Brahman, as heat is from fire. By that knowledge, which is the Self itself, by that unborn knowledge, is known the knowable. The oneness of knowers and known is established. When the final goal is realised, there is no knowledge apart from the Self.

This non-constructed knowledge (jñānam) is non-different from Self-luminous (svayaṃprakāśa) Brahman. This knowledge does not require any other instrument of knowledge (pramaṇas) to illumine it. Knowledge is like light, which illumine itself and other objects. It is Self-luminous. To see a lamp, we do not need another lamp. To ‘know’ is to become one with the knowledge. Hence the unborn Brahman, like the ever-effulgent sun, is self illumined. The meaning is that the Self/ ātman being ever a homogeneous mass of Consciousness, like the sun which is of the nature of constant illumination does not depend on any other knowledge for its revelation.

Gauḍapāda in kārikās 34-35 points out the distinction between the mind that has become “non-mind” (amanibhāva) and the condition of a person in the deep sleep state where there is no subject-object relation.

Gauḍapāda in kārikā 34 says: ‘The behaviour of the mind that is under control, i.e., which is free from all imaginations and that is endowed with discrimination, should be known. The condition of the mind in deep sleep is of another sort and not like that’. It means the condition of the mind in deep sleep is different and not like the one (i.e. the mind which is nigṛhīta, nirvikalpa and dhīmat, free from all construction).

According to Śaṅkara the mind that is free from imagination, becomes controlled and tranquil and this is compared to the fire which has exhausted its fuel. Such mind is free from all construction (sarva kalpanā) and hence the author uses the term nirvikalpaka for it. When the mind becomes non-mind, duality is not experienced. Yogins should specially understand this state of the mind which is thus under control (nirūddha/ nigṛhīta), which is free from all imagination (nirvikalpasya) and which has no discrimination (dhīmataḥ).

It may be contended that in the absence of all kinds of activities and their objects, the mind of a sage under control behaves in the same way as the mind in the state of deep-sleep, as in both states there are no objects. To this contention Śaṅkara clarifies that the state of mind in the deep sleep (suş upta) is different, being under the influence of darkness of delusion caused by ignorance (avidyā). The mind in sleep is possessed of many latent impressions which are the seeds of numerous future undesirable activities. The state of the controlled (nirūddha) mind is surely different from the mind in deep sleep. This controlled mind burns all seeds of evil activities by the fire of the knowledge that ātman alone is the Truth. Thus the two states are not similar. The controlled mind has its own distinct state. It has nothing in common with the mind in deep sleep state. The purport of this kārikā is that the state of controlled mind should be known.

In this kārikā Gauḍapāda establishes that there is nothing other than Consciousness. In this case it may be urged that the controlled mind and the mind in the deep sleep state are one and the same. He brings out the difference between two states i.e. state of knowledge and deep sleep state. The dispassionate enlightened mind has no object to comprehend. The deep sleep state too is free from the acts of the mind. However both these states are completely different from one and another.

Gauḍapāda in kārikā 35 gives the reason for the difference between the controlled (nigṛhīta) mind of a jñāni and the mind in the deep sleep state. He says that: ‘As the mind is withdrawn at the time of deep sleep and not so in the case of the (Vedāntic) discipline, (therefore there is a difference between the condition of the mind of a sleeper and that of a Jñāni). That (mind of Jñāni) becomes identical with fearless Brahman whose all-round illumination is Consciousness alone’.

Śaṅkara in his commentary on this kārikā says that in deep sleep the mind remains in the latent state, being covered by an undifferentiated darkness (tamorupam aviśesa rupas), in which exist the cause of all (ordinary) experiences (bijabhāva), due to ignorance (avidyā/agrahaṇaṃ). But when the mind is controlled (niruddha) owing to the realisation of ātman through the knowledge of discrimination, it is not temporarily withdrawn. Again the mind in this state does not turn into a seed-like (latent) condition and darkness. Therefore, there is justification for making a distinction between the function of the mind on deep sleep and the mind of a jñāni which is under control.

Śaṅkara says when that mind becomes free from the dual impurity of subject-object relationship, then it becomes one with non-dual supreme Brahman. The mind in that state is free from all fear (nirbhayam)^[6], for fear arises when one sees the other. The non-dual Brahman is peace and fearlessness. The knower of this ‘Truth’ has no fear from anywhere. The same is further explained by saying that jñāna means Knowledge, Consciousness, which is the very nature of the Self. It is that Brahman whose illumination/effulgence is jñāna. Brahman is one homogenous mass of Consciousness (vijñāna). It is all pervasive (samantataḥ) like the ākāśa. It is ananta, means all pervading. Brahman has no limitations. Brahman is knowledge itself (satyam jñānam anantam Brahman).

Gauḍapāda in kārikā 36 describes the nature of Self as it is revealed by the nigṛhīta mind of a jñāni. He says: ‘(This Brahman is) birthless, free from sleep and dream, without name and form, ever-effulgent and omniscient. Nothing has to be done in any way (with respect to Brahman)’.

Saṅkara explains that Brahman is not born from any cause. For this reason Brahman is uncaused, it is both within and without, and is ever unborn. It has already been stated that the creation of the universe (prapañca) from Brahman is due to ignorance. As a rope appears as a snake through ignorance, the unborn appears as born. This ignorance is dispelled by the Knowledge of the Truth which is the ātman. If one experiences the nature of the Self, there is cessation of avidyā, then one understands the Self as unborn and ever free from non-apprehension.

According to Śaṅkara as Brahman is unborn, therefore it is without sleep (nonapprehension of reality). Here sleep means the beginningless māyā characterised by ignorance. The term beginningless refers to the non-traceability of its origin. The term ‘anādi’ meaning beginning-less error does not mean that it does not have an end. With the knowledge of the Self, the sleep in the form of ‘avidyā’ is removed. Such a person recognizes his non-dual nature and therefore he is ever free from misapprehension.Thus the knower of the Self is free from both the errors namely the error of non-apprehension (nidrā) and the error of distortion (svapnam). Names and forms too are the creation of this ignorance. They are destroyed when one wakes up to reality like the snake cognition on the rope gets destroyed. Thus Brahman is free from name (anāmakam) and form (arupakam). The Śruti says “from which words turn back” (TaiU II.4.). Brahman is Self-effulgent and always an illuminor (sakṛt vibhātam). It is free from apprehension and non-apprehension, manifestation and nonmanifestation.

Apprehension or non-apprehension of Brahman are like day and night of the Sun. The sun shines forever. It is darkness/night that conceal the sun from our view. In reality the sun itself has no night or day. Similarly Brahman has no apprehension or nonapprehension of objects. It stands as witness to both grahaṇam and agrahaṇam. The darkness of nescience is ever the cause of non-apprehension. Apprehension and nonapprehension do not belong to Brahman, Brahman is by nature eternal Consciousness. Therefore it is reasonable to say that Brahman is ever-shinning and omniscient (sarvajñam).

Śaṅkara says that with regard to this Brahman of such nature (svarūpa), no action (na upacāraḥ) can be enjoined or any disciplinary activity can be prescribed. Such activity like the practicing of concentration etc., is required only for those who are ignorant of the real nature of Brahman. Brahman is of the nature of purity, knowledge and freedom. All phenomenal activity is possible only in the state of ignorance. And when ignorance (avidyā) is destroyed or error is corrected there is no possibility at all of prescribing any ceremony (practice), disciplinary activity or any obligatory act.

Swami Nilkhilananda comments succinctly on this commentary of Śaṅkara thus: “All imaginations regarding samādhi, etc., may have their application in the state of ignorance when one does not realise the ever-illumined nature of his Self”^[7].

Gauḍapāda in kārikā 37 says: ‘This ātman is beyond all expression by words, beyond all acts of mind; It is all peace, eternal effulgence, free from activity and fear and attainable by concentrated understanding of the Jīva’.

According to Śaṅkara the word ‘abhilāpaḥ’ in the kārikā means the organ of speech. The Self/ ātman is (vigataḥ) without speech means that ātman is beyond all expressions in words. That by which we describe objects etc., consists of words. The words constitute the means by which all explanations are given. Ātman is free from these means that is language (words). It means that ātman is free from the functions and results of all (external) sense-organs.

The Self/ ātman is sarva-cintā-samutthitaḥ. The word ‘cintā’, derived in the sense of that by which we think, means the intellect (buddhi).The Self is beyond thought, which means that the ātman is devoid of internal sense-organs (antahkaraṇa). This is supported by the Śruti text that ‘… Brahman is without breath (prāṇa), without mind, pure and higher than the highest immutable ‘(Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad II.1.2)^[8].

Being devoid of all objects (viṣayas), ātman is peaceful (supraśāntaḥ). The Self/ ātman is ever effulgent (sakṛtjyotiḥ). By saying that the ātman is everlasting self effulgent light (sakṛtjyoti) Gauḍapāda means that Consciousness needs no other conscious entity to illumine it. It is one mass of knowledge-as-such and, therefore, to know the knowledge, no other knowledge is necessary.

The Self/ ātman is described as samādhi because one can realise the Self through the insight arising out of the deepest concentration. Śaṅkara suggests that there can be another meaning of the use of the word samādhi. The ātman is called samādhi because It is the object of concentration. The jīva and its conditions (upādhis) get absorbed in the ātman. The Self is unmovable (acala) means without any modifications (pariṇāma). As the Self is devoid of modifications, it is ever fearless (abhayaḥ).

Gauḍapāda used the word samādhi as a description of the nature of Brahman, rather than the idea that Brahman/ ātman is to be realised by any disciplinary activity. According to him when the mind becomes ‘non-mind’ i.e. when there is amanastā (amanibhāva), that itself is called Brahman or samādhi.

According to Karmarkar, the mind (manas) with the amanibhāva (non-mind) is samādhi itself, not something to be achieved by samādhi^[9]. Vidhuśekhara says that the word ‘acala’ in this kārikā refers to a particular kind of samādhi in Buddhism^[10], which is not intended by Gauḍapāda. ‘Acala’ in the sense of ‘without modifications’ is appropriate in the philosophies of both Gauḍapāda and Śaṅkara. According to Gauḍapāda, samādhi means changeless (kūṭastha), eternal (nitya), Paramārtha, Caitanyaātman and not some process of samādhi. No disciplinary activity is intended by the word samādhi, as Gauḍapāda in kārikā 36 says that no ‘upacāra’ or such activity like yogic disciplinary of the concentration of mind is necessary to realise the Self.

Following the earlier kārikā Gauḍapāda continues with his discussion of the nature of Self in kārikā 38. He says: ‘In that Brahman which is free from all acts of mind there is neither any idea of acceptance nor any idea of giving up (of anything). Established in the ātman (Self), knowledge attains to the state of birthlessness and sameness, that is to say, changelessness’.

According to Śaṅkara as Brahman has been described as ‘samādhi’, fearless and without modification, there can be no such action in Brahman as grasping anything or giving up anything. He says that it is only when there is modification or possibility of modification, that apprehension and abandonment are possible. But these two do not exist in Brahman. The reasons are that there exists nothing other than Brahman. Again, there is no cause for modification in Brahman and Brahman is without parts. There is no mental activity in Brahman. When the mind is absent (amanibhāva), there cannot possibly be any thought.

How can these two i.e. acceptance and rejection be there in Brahman when there is no thought in it? Thoughtlessness in the (amanibhāva) state of realisation is the reason for the absence of rejection as well as acceptance of anything, as Brahman alone exist. Thus to conclude that in the state of realisation the Self/ ātman alone is the truth, there remains no objects to know, and knowledge (jñānam) gets established in the Self alone (ātmasaṃstham)^[11]. It is like the heat of fire centered in the fire in the absence of fuel to burn. This knowledge is unborn (ajāti) and becomes homogeneous (gatam samatāṃ).

Gauḍapāda in earlier kārikā (3:2) made a promise, hence speaks of Brahman which is free from limitation (akārpanya), unborn (ajāti) and ever the same (sama). The same conclusion is now established by means of reasoning and scriptural authority. Everything else, apart from this realisation of the ātman/ Self is within the sphere of misery, ignorance, etc.. The Śruti warns that a person, who departs from this world without knowing this Imperishable Self is pitiable (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. III.8.10)^[12]. The meaning is that by realising this knowledge (i.e. ātman is non-dual), one has all his desires accomplished and he becomes a real Brahmana (established in Brahman), the real knower of Brahman.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Bhattacharya points out that the phrase ‘grāhyābhāve tadagrahat’ in this (3:32) kārikā occurs in exactly the same from in Vasnbandhu’s Trimśikā, section 28 He reads ‘Agrahat’ in place of ‘Agraham’ without change in meaning’, Bhattacharya, Āgama śāstra, 68.

[2]:

S. Radhakrishnan, The Principal Upaniṣads, 447.

[3]:

Ibid., 265.

[4]:

Ibid., 244.

[5]:

Ibid., 541.

[6]:

In deep sleep one does not experience fear. But when one wakes up the mind begins to perceive the plurality and thereby gets shrouded with fear (bhayam).

[7]:

Nilkhilananda Swami, The Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad, 197 fn.

[8]:

S. Radhakrishnan, The Principal Upaniṣad, 680.

[9]:

Karmarkar, Gauḍapāda-Kārikā, 103.

[10]:

Bhattacharya, Āgama śāstra, 72.

[11]:

According to Bhattacharya the phrase ‘ātmasaṃstha’ as ‘the mind resting in itself’. The term ātma in the compound ‘ātmasaṃstha’ does not refer to the Self/ ātman. Ātmasaṃstha does not mean ‘Brahmasam ƒ stha’ according to him. He says that, “This ātmasaṃstha jñāna but is comparable to the vijñānamātra of the Buddhist Vijñānavadins….. When the vijñāna does not apprehend any object whatsoever and as such rests only in itself this state is called vijñānamātratā. Bhattacharya, Āgamaśāstra, 73.

[12]:

S. Radhakrishnan, The Principal Upaniṣads, 233.